My issue with this technology is that it sure it makes it easy for actors, but it looks cheap and a lot of the time. It's getting overused. It's crazy the difference of how Iron Man is looking in quality compared to a film like thor 4, a over 10 year difference.
Hi, I am a vfx artist who worked on some of these movies/TVs. I understand your hatred towards whatever that's making the look "bad". However, I do need to point out that the Obiwan show @5:10 and boba show @5:39 are literally on set, not in front of the Stagecraft. One can be seen from the official behind the scene and one that I worked on(literally some of my shots). and the world with the most boring colour @5:08 is kind of just how it looks like on set.. A desert is boring. To me, it feel like that Mando1 mando2 mando3 bobafett andor and obiwan are roughly having the same day time style comparing to each other. Night time, yeah that's rough.. At the end of the day, I think it really comes down to how experienced the director and DP are. Technology and techniques should build on each other.
LED screens will never replace green or bluescreens. They cannot get bright enough to replicate the sun properly. Using LED screens also means you have to do a lot of cgi before you shoot the fillm. This requires a lot of planning that the studios would rather put aside for later. When vfx in marvel movies for example look bad, its because its all shot on bluescreen with improper lighting. This is because they dont actually know what the background is going to be yet. So the VFX artists have to compensate for the poor lighting after, and relighting actors is EXTREMELY difficult in VFX. Poor choices on set lead to poor vfx down the line, and vfx artists get the blame every time. Also, a note on the LED screens: If the director regrets what he put on the screens after he shoots it, its a pain in the ass to change later because we dont have bluescreens.
I think you could have gone a bit deeper into explaining how some scenes look bad thanks to the overuse of volume, I get that it can be obvious just by looking at it, but a good breakdown wouldn't hurt, otherwise great video! thank you for pointing this out, because it may be very easy to miss if you are not aware of the current technology and vfx processes.
I do agree, in the editing process I had an example in mando s3 that I talked about extensively but I couldn’t quite word it right imo and it broke the flow of the video, so I decided to cut it. Thanks for the input!
LED volumes aren’t to blame here chief. And it’s literally the only way to get the slop to consumers at the scale the shareholders require. Any tool will look like shit if you are using a creative tool for the most cynical reasons possible. Green screen at this scale would look even worse I promise. Source;I work on these sets.
Is The Volume the same tech used by new Star Trek shows like Discovery S4 and Strange New Worlds? Because those shows look great both when they create detailed backgrounds and when they go with the late 80s smokey backgrounds
The Volume is a tool, and it has it's uses. But if you use a hammer to pound screws into a wall instead of something more appropriate like a screw driver, the results won't be great. It feels like everything in the newer Star Wars shows (Andor excluded) looks like it was filmed 100% in The Volume, and the results look cheap, fake and unconvincing. How much of Ahsoka was a handful of people talking or fighting or whatever in an area about 40 feet across, built according to the limits of just one tool? None of the scenes breathe like they do in Andor. Part of the trick is knowing when not to use it, or cutting out scenes that just don't look right. George Lucas understood this in the original trilogy, as the scenes with crappier effects were just straight cut out. Flash forward to CGI-saturated prequels, and it seems like he just didn't care as much, since so many scenes look obviously fake. These tools can only be as good as them people using them, and the choices they make.
That was surprisingly nicer and less negative than I expected. Ended rather positive in fact.
My issue with this technology is that it sure it makes it easy for actors, but it looks cheap and a lot of the time. It's getting overused. It's crazy the difference of how Iron Man is looking in quality compared to a film like thor 4, a over 10 year difference.
It was sick and cool in the beginning, but it got so overused and noticeable that it got exhausting by now
I wish the volume never got invented. It’s an amazing tool for certain circumstances, but it’s made companies lazy with set design
Every time I go to a movie and see the volume I immediately sigh and can’t stop seeing it. It looks cool but is so noticeable
Hi, I am a vfx artist who worked on some of these movies/TVs. I understand your hatred towards whatever that's making the look "bad". However, I do need to point out that the Obiwan show @5:10 and boba show @5:39 are literally on set, not in front of the Stagecraft. One can be seen from the official behind the scene and one that I worked on(literally some of my shots). and the world with the most boring colour @5:08 is kind of just how it looks like on set.. A desert is boring. To me, it feel like that Mando1 mando2 mando3 bobafett andor and obiwan are roughly having the same day time style comparing to each other. Night time, yeah that's rough.. At the end of the day, I think it really comes down to how experienced the director and DP are. Technology and techniques should build on each other.
Well said! I know your job is a tough one and I wish you the best of luck going forward
LED screens will never replace green or bluescreens. They cannot get bright enough to replicate the sun properly. Using LED screens also means you have to do a lot of cgi before you shoot the fillm. This requires a lot of planning that the studios would rather put aside for later. When vfx in marvel movies for example look bad, its because its all shot on bluescreen with improper lighting. This is because they dont actually know what the background is going to be yet. So the VFX artists have to compensate for the poor lighting after, and relighting actors is EXTREMELY difficult in VFX. Poor choices on set lead to poor vfx down the line, and vfx artists get the blame every time. Also, a note on the LED screens: If the director regrets what he put on the screens after he shoots it, its a pain in the ass to change later because we dont have bluescreens.
I think you could have gone a bit deeper into explaining how some scenes look bad thanks to the overuse of volume, I get that it can be obvious just by looking at it, but a good breakdown wouldn't hurt, otherwise great video! thank you for pointing this out, because it may be very easy to miss if you are not aware of the current technology and vfx processes.
I do agree, in the editing process I had an example in mando s3 that I talked about extensively but I couldn’t quite word it right imo and it broke the flow of the video, so I decided to cut it. Thanks for the input!
Good job, great video.
ANDOR MENTIONED LETSGOOOO!!!!!!!
LED volumes aren’t to blame here chief. And it’s literally the only way to get the slop to consumers at the scale the shareholders require. Any tool will look like shit if you are using a creative tool for the most cynical reasons possible.
Green screen at this scale would look even worse I promise. Source;I work on these sets.
Is The Volume the same tech used by new Star Trek shows like Discovery S4 and Strange New Worlds? Because those shows look great both when they create detailed backgrounds and when they go with the late 80s smokey backgrounds
The Volume is a tool, and it has it's uses. But if you use a hammer to pound screws into a wall instead of something more appropriate like a screw driver, the results won't be great. It feels like everything in the newer Star Wars shows (Andor excluded) looks like it was filmed 100% in The Volume, and the results look cheap, fake and unconvincing. How much of Ahsoka was a handful of people talking or fighting or whatever in an area about 40 feet across, built according to the limits of just one tool? None of the scenes breathe like they do in Andor.
Part of the trick is knowing when not to use it, or cutting out scenes that just don't look right. George Lucas understood this in the original trilogy, as the scenes with crappier effects were just straight cut out. Flash forward to CGI-saturated prequels, and it seems like he just didn't care as much, since so many scenes look obviously fake. These tools can only be as good as them people using them, and the choices they make.